a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Rather than people making free choices about how and where to work, risk capital, negotiate, organize their affairs, and getting to keep most of what comes from those private interactions, the "community" (or those speaking for them as it usually turns out) sticks its nose into every interaction and decides where and to who the results of these private interactions and private effort should go.

Because it's a free market and the desire for and availability of motivated work come to a middle point? The only way you can keep people poor is socialism and government control. Otherwise the market sets the price.

And yes the poor absolutely squander. They smoke and drink far more, cost more in health care (choosing unhealthy life practices and foods), and fail to save and invest for the future despite the ability to do so (they can get far greater returns than the rich). It's essentially the rich that are investing in capital and future production. That's why they're rich to begin with.

Start on an island with equal resources and marshmallow-now eaters and two-marshmallows-later eaters, and the power of compounding will have the delayed eaters controlling most of the resources. Same results for intelligence provided violence is removed from the equation.

Start on two separate islands (removing exploitation) and you'll see one vastly more developed than the other. It's just how the world works.

Nah, you're wrong. Merit is a purchased commodity and people are locked out of it. (Kendzior)

This is perhaps the most ignorant statement I've read about politics. I highly recommend reading what the left say, they are completely bat**** crazy just like the Maoists and the Bolsheviks were.

The bolded is precisely what they are saying. The thinking goes like this:

1. All races, cultures and genders are equally talented (to say otherwise is racism, white heteronormative patriarcy, and sexism, respectively, which are no-nos and in fact unthinkable)

2. Given (1), if there are disparities in any way in measurable outcomes between races, cultures or genders, this MUST be due to racism, white heteronormative patriarchy, or sexism.

3. These disparities are therefore unfair and should be fought in any way possible.

It is pure unhinged crazy, masquerading as reasonableness, and actually difficult to intellectually argue against if you're stupid, because (2) follows directly and strongly from the false assumptions in (1). And to question (1) means you're a racist, sexist, patriarchalist, etc.

To the extent that the claims are somewhat reasonable (African American lack of success can be partly traced back to historical racism and not entirely to their culture), they are still are static and not creative. Nor they do they take self referential effects into account. Thus they are extremely harmful.

For example, the best thing that can happen to black communities is for the entire community to understand and accept the shame that the biggest cause of black poverty is the fact that black fathers fail to live at the home of their children at a very high rate (>72%). This statistic is not due to racism; in 1950 under Jim Crow in a frequently racist society it was 22%. So it is cultural.

But instead black people are taught that white society is oppressive and racist toward toward them, at some deep hidden super secret level that's somehow bound into the structure of everything, and that this needs to be corrected/overthrown.

This view is obviously highly destructive to the cultural and economic success of black people - for one it masks the true and more importantly changeable reasons for their poverty (desertion of children by fathers). For two it makes people think in racist, collectivist rather than individualist terms (which are the basis of understanding and success). It is also antithetical to the kind of conscientious, internal locus of control viewpoint that all successful oppressed minority communities have adopted (Asian immigrants, for example).

No, they aren't.

Yes but it's not the dominant culture that needs to be changed. That's highly meritocratic and fair, at least in the US. It's the internal culture of the oppressed that needs to change. That's a bitter pill to swallow but it's medicine that needs to be swallowed to get better.

It seems that your view of the left is entirely based on Youtube videos of idiots arguing with Ben Shapiro.

The Maoists and Bolsheviks removed the free market, formed a dictatorship, and stripped people of the land, businesses, and occupations. These are the things that were so bad about them and no one on the left is advocating for any of those things. You are basically making the Glenn Beck "Obama is a Nazi" argument.

You are right that black culture has major issues with self-victimization. This is largely because of the centuries of racism and discrimination that they endured. Their issues with regard to culture are actually closely mimicked by Native Americans.

This is partly what I was referencing when I said it had to do with complex cultural issues. The problem of self-victimization is made even worse by the fact that there is still some real discrimination that happens, making the victimization feel more real.

However, this doesn't mean anything can or should be done about it. For example, those on the left are advocating for criminal justice reform. This would reduce the black population in prison, ending a real discriminatory issue (blacks go to prison on drug charges more than whites, even though they use them at a similar rate). It would also improve the relationship between black people and the police force. The combination of these two things will make black people feel like they have more control over their lives and therefore feel less like victims. It would also help to reduce discrimination in housing and employment by negating the stereotype about black people being criminals.

The problem with passing these reforms is that there is a lot of money in keeping people in prison and on probation, even though it makes no sense for society to do it beyond what is needed. So companies poor millions of dollars into lobbying to prevent reforms that would benefit society. This is another left wing issue as the liberals want campaign finance reform.

Between those two policy issues discrimination can be reduced, black culture improved, tax money saved (by spending less on sending people to prison or keeping them on probation), and an economic inefficiency is removed (lobbying and poor tax dollar allocation are both economically inefficient).

It doesn't matter what I post in reply to TS because he's still gonna stomp around proclaiming it idiotic and conjuring up some withered talking points. I don't waste time treating him seriously because he is not interested in reasonable discussion. Plus he's a racist ****.

Start on an island with equal resources and marshmallow-now eaters and two-marshmallows-later eaters, and the power of compounding will have the delayed eaters controlling most of the resources. Same results for intelligence provided violence is removed from the equation.

Start on two separate islands (removing exploitation) and you'll see one vastly more developed than the other. It's just how the world works.

The results of the original marshmallow test were bull****. When the test was repeated using about 1000 participants (original used around 100) and controlled for income level, they found that there was no difference between the one and two marshmallow kids.

Coincident with the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth, socialism is making a comeback in American political discourse. Detailed policy proposals from self-declared socialists are gaining support in Congress and among much of the younger electorate. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the claims of modern U.S. socialists from the perspective of economists who have extensively studied the costs and benefits of socialism. We examine socialism’s historical and modern vision and intent, its economic incentives, its impact around the world on economic performance, and its relationship with recent policy proposals in the U.S.

To economists, socialism is not a zero-one designation. Whether a country or industry is socialist is a question of the degree to which (a) the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the state; and (b) the state uses its control to distribute the economic output without regard for final consumers’ willingness to pay or exchange (i.e., giving resources away “for free”). As explained below, this definition conforms with both statements and policy proposals from leading socialists, ranging from Karl Marx to Vladimir Lenin to Mao Zedong to current American socialists.

We find that historical proponents of socialist policies and those in the contemporary United States share some of their visions and intents. They both characterize the distribution of income in market economies as the unjust result of “exploitation,” which should be rectified by extensive state control. The proposed solutions include single-payer systems, high tax rates (“from each according to his ability”), and public policies that hand out much of the Nation’s goods and services “free” of charge (“to each according to his needs”). Where they differ is that contemporary democratic socialists denounce state brutality and would allow individuals to privately own the means of production in many industries.

In modern models of capitalist economies, there is, of course, an ample role for government. In particular, there are public goods and goods with externalities that will be inefficiently supplied by the free market. Public goods are undersupplied in a completely free market because there is a free rider problem. For example, if national defense, a public good enjoyed by the whole country, were sold at local supermarkets, few would contribute because they would feel their individual purchase would not matter and they would prefer others to contribute while still being defended. Consequently, the market would not provide sufficient defense. However, socialist regimes go well beyond government intervention into markets with public goods or externalities.

We all need roads. We could have companies bid to take over our roads (which there would be plenty who would) to privatize them. So back to my point. Why is single-payer on the socialist list but not roads. Saying there would be a free rider issue is wrong. There would be no free riders and no shortage of roads.

The answer is both are socialist just one few but libertarians care about.

We all need roads. We could have companies bid to take over our roads (which there would be plenty who would) to privatize them. So back to my point. Why is single-payer on the socialist list but not roads. Saying there would be a free rider issue is wrong. There would be no free riders and no shortage of roads.

The answer is both are socialist just one few but libertarians care about.

They bite the bullet and want roads privatized. Most republicans dont want roads privatized yet scream bloody murder we cant have socialized healthcare. Why is one ok but not the other.

It’s the same on the other side of the aisle: Some Dems fully support the anti-capitalism politicians like Bernie and AOC, while other Dems don’t want to get rid of capitalism but would like some more fetters, higher taxes on the wealthy, welfare programs put in place, etc. It sounds like you think everyone needs to agree on everything taken to it's logical conclusion and that there's no continuum at all.

The point is a whole hell of a lot of republicans are socialist (anti-capitalist) bastards too. They just pretend they are not to use the label as a tool to stop the things they dont want government involved in all while being that very tool for the things they do want.

For sure i would admit dems are more on the socialist scale then reps. But until the solid republican states start privatizing their roads and water i call bull**** on the socialist label for one but not the other.

I think the most reasonable solution to all of these issues is what Bill Gates proposed about the inheritance tax. It would still allow people to get filthy rich and enjoy their fruits of labor but they can't just put their kids unreasonably ahead of others.

Max cut is your classic politics rube who can't ever formulate an actual argument or counter argument. He does the same thing in the bitcoin thread. Lurks around and tosses out empty attacks. Incapable of articulating anything resembling an argument or idea.

Like the kid who always had snot on his face being shown the difference between a left and right shoe getting it backwards day after day, you can explain how useless max cut is and he keeps marching forward with the same idiotic behavior without hesitation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Cut

nice on the fly numbers

juan valdez, another bitter poster that regularly pollutes non-politics forums with parroted far-right fear-mongering propaganda because he's not allowed in politics. Was it racism, nazi support, hateful misogyny, or not being able to provide legit sources for your wild claims of truth that got you exiled?

there's no argument here. Is any of this never mind all of it true? You're straight up unhinged. I think all of those accusations result in a site ban. I was exiled for doing to the mod what I'm doing to you. I challenged him to stop asking stupid questions and actually articulate an idea or argument. Because both he and yourself are incapable, he went with the only alternative that preserves the delusion which was to exile me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Cut

It doesn't matter what I post in reply to TS because he's still gonna stomp around proclaiming it idiotic and conjuring up some withered talking points. I don't waste time treating him seriously because he is not interested in reasonable discussion. Plus he's a racist ****.

It would be somewhat believable that you were specifically unwilling to argue against tooth if it wasn't your entire posting history to lurk and hurl empty and argument free attacks. You chose to participate in the discussion in your usual manner while refusing to formulate anything resembling an idea or argument.

Interesting note, masculine aggression is obvious. Feminine aggression comes in the form of character assassination and gossip. It's basically all you've done here. Come up with some actual content or take this nonsense back to wookies all-male nail salon for some hate-gossip

Quote:

Originally Posted by applesauce123

Your hot take on equity vs. equality is pretty terrible. It's basically "The libs used a synonym with a slightly different meaning that what MLK would have used. They are basically pissing on his grave". According to Google here are the definitions of the two words:
equality: The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities
Equity: The quality of being fair and impartial

Any sane person would see that those words have basically identical meaning and that your desire to own the libs in clouding your judgement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by applesauce123

It seems that your view of the left is entirely based on Youtube videos of idiots arguing with Ben Shapiro.

The Maoists and Bolsheviks removed the free market, formed a dictatorship, and stripped people of the land, businesses, and occupations. These are the things that were so bad about them and no one on the left is advocating for any of those things. You are basically making the Glenn Beck "Obama is a Nazi" argument.

You should think this through before confidently demonstrating an extraordinary amount of ignorance. "Any sane person" doesn't see "those words have basically identical meaning and that your desire to own the libs in clouding your judgement."

The difference between equality and equity is very large, and unfortunately very relevant. Equity or equality of outcome is the ideology responsible for the largest body count in repeated genocides in the 20th century. It's not even close. It's also responsible for the majority of famines. It's an awful ideology that works well for a mother in the family unit that is an absolute disaster as a cultural philosophy.

It's not like on day one of equity doctrines people start getting murdered and the food lines start forming. Things corrode, deteriorate, crumble, and collapse. People like Bernie Sanders were praising Venezuela. It's now in the final stages where the economy has collapsed, and the government just started raiding hospitals to round up the doctors. Equity has a perfect track record of disaster. Pretending the difference is trivial is absolutely idiotic. It' not like the track record is 50/50 or the consequences aren't extreme.

These equity doctrines are becoming extremely prominent in mainstream left wing politics in the west and the democrat party. The mod of this forums politics section just last month tried to mock me as a sexist for believing that women choope different and lower paying jobs than men. It's actually one of the most deeply researched topics in social science that has been replicated numerous studies with 10's of thousands of participants. Not only that, anyone with any sort of social skills can see men are different than women. Sane people don't debate this. The politics mod is so woke he thinks i'm holding sexist view to believe men are different than women. As tooth explained, that's the mentality you need to have in order to justify your belief in equity. It's absurd you need to provide these people large scale scientific studies to validate the most obvious human observation but then they still stick their head in the sand. You basically have people with the social skills of someone who falls in love with a sex doll informing everyone they need to get woke.

The ideology started growing years ago and when you let it be, things like this keep popping up

The rising stars in the democratic party are getting further and further left. If one of them wins the nomination (esp Bernie) then a Dem win in the election would certainly cause the market to panic. The market rallied and loved every Trump quote and tweet that was pro business. It would likely see the opposite if a Bernie-like president was constantly pushing for higher taxes, regulation, etc. Regardless of what you think is moral, the market likes growth and profit and when someone is taking ax swings at that, it's going to have consequences

Interesting note, masculine aggression is obvious. Feminine aggression comes in the form of character assassination and gossip. It's basically all you've done here. Come up with some actual content or take this nonsense back to wookies all-male nail salon for some hate-gossip

The point is a whole hell of a lot of republicans are socialist (anti-capitalist) bastards too. They just pretend they are not to use the label as a tool to stop the things they dont want government involved in all while being that very tool for the things they do want.

For sure i would admit dems are more on the socialist scale then reps. But until the solid republican states start privatizing their roads and water i call bull**** on the socialist label for one but not the other.

You can, but it's still a non sequitur that just because people want public goods like roads they should also want to abolish capitalism or not be opposed to those who want to do so.

I challenged him to stop asking stupid questions and actually articulate an idea or argument. Because both he and yourself are incapable, he went with the only alternative that preserves the delusion which was to exile me.

Well that sounds perhaps unreasonable if true, depending on how you asked and other details.

Quote:

Interesting note, masculine aggression is obvious. Feminine aggression comes in the form of character assassination and gossip.

Yeah, imma gonna go ahead and think that is not how your ban went down.